> That was my only concern, e.g.,> .data and .data.[_0-9a-zA-Z] spoke be in the same description.

I was talking about splitting up .data and both .data.tbl .data.rng --you were talking specifically only about .data and .data.[_0-9a-zA-Z]and now I see the concern! Yes, you are -- we can avoid this, its justyour glob would also capture .data.tbl and data.rng and I want to sortthese so I do it first. But as you already deduced, this should stillhave no harm as I am just stuffing it in well sorted first and thelater glob just captures that. I could have just used .data..tbl anddata..rng as you noted. Either way is fine by me.

Do you have a preference?

>> > The usual way to cope with that seems to be to use two dots for your>> > name.>> > .text..rng.*>>>> I have been wondering why people started doing that, it was not clear>> nor documented anywhere. So no, it was not my original motivation, but>> if it helps, it will be good to document this as well.>> Yeah it's convention because . can be part of a section name but not a C> symbol.

Great, makes sense -- do you have references for this practice BTW ordid you just infer this?